Why is divorce a requirement for annulment screening?

[roseofshannon]

My husband and I have been legally separated for 3 years. We have been married for 25 years.

He served me with divorce docs the other day saying that it’s time to move on.

Move on?? From marriage??

So he plans to try to get an annulment so he can be free to remarry in the future. He doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life alone.

I do not want a divorce or annulment. Without going into all the reasons, let me just say, that if our marriage wasn’t a sacrament then nobody’s is.

So rather than go into all the details and rabbit trails on this thread, I’d like to focus on my real question:

WHY IS DIVORCE A PRE-REQUISITE??

More than likely, he will go through the whole process, only to find that we are still joined in a sacramental marriage for life. At that point we will unfortunately be divorced rather than legally separated.

I prefer legal separation because it is a way for us to continue to witness to our children/grandchildren and the world the fact that Catholics believe that marriage really is until death do us part. This is a powerful witness and way to continue living our vocation which will be lost as a result of an experimental procedure.

 

[Vico]

My husband and I have been legally separated for 3 years. We have been married for 25 years.

He served me with divorce docs the other day saying that it’s time to move on.

Move on?? From marriage??

So he plans to try to get an annulment so he can be free to remarry in the future. He doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life alone.

I do not want a divorce or annulment. Without going into all the reasons, let me just say, that if our marriage wasn’t a sacrament then nobody’s is.

So rather than go into all the details and rabbit trails on this thread, I’d like to focus on my real question:

WHY IS DIVORCE A PRE-REQUISITE??

More than likely, he will go through the whole process, only to find that we are still joined in a sacramental marriage for life. At that point we will unfortunately be divorced rather than legally separated.

I prefer legal separation because it is a way for us to continue to witness to our children/grandchildren and the world the fact that Catholics believe that marriage really is until death do us part. This is a powerful witness and way to continue living our vocation which will be lost as a result of an experimental procedure.

According to Difficult Moral Questions by Germain Grisez (1997):

“Though tribunals usually will not consider any marriage case prior to a final decree of civil divorce, that practice is not required by Church law.”

But, Diocese of Phoenix has this on their tribunal page:
Do I need to be civilly divorced before petitioning for an annulment?
Yes. Because the annulment process is purely religious, it does not involve custody of children, temporal goods, etc. which must be settled before the investigation in the Tribunal may begin. In the United States there are no civil effects to the Catholic Church’s annulment process. A civil divorce is a definitive separation of the spouses and serves as an indicator that the marriage and common life have, for all intents and purposes, ceased. If the Church were to declare a marriage no longer binding, while the couple still remained civilly bound to one another, it would create numerous problems with custody of children, financial disputes, and put the Church at odds with civil authorities.

diocese-tribunal.org/faq.php

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Legally separated usually implies that y’all aren’t living together. If y’all have been doing that for three years, how exactly are you living out your vocation?
Do y’all still do things with one another? Have family dinners? Do y’all communicate when it comes to finances? How are you raising a family together if y’all aren’t…together?
Not wanting a divorce doesn’t mean that you aren’t getting one. I didn’t want a divorce and I was blindsided by mine, not legally separated for years. If papers were served, you will divorce unless he changes his mind, since he filed.
I’m really sorry you are going through this, I received my final decree of divorce recently.
If you don’t want to participate in the annulment process you don’t have to. He can do it without you.

 

[Xantippe]

Legally separated usually implies that y’all aren’t living together. If y’all have been doing that for three years, how exactly are you living out your vocation?

**Right. From the point of view of 99% of your family and friends, it makes very little difference if you are legally separated vs. divorced as far as your witness on the permanence of marriage.

If you divorced and remarried, yes, that would be different. **

I’d add that one of the merits of the divorce/annul versus annul/divorce system is that for an informed and faithful Catholic, it means that the question is, “Is it better to live alone for the rest of my life or continue to live with this person as husband and wife?” If it is clearly better to live alone for life, then that’s a pretty good indicator that divorce is not unreasonable. I would not encourage anybody to divorce in the expectation of an annulment (unless it was very open and shut and an intolerable home situation).

Here are some issues I see with an annul/divorce system:

1. What if the couple gets the annulment and just continues to live together, with no attempt at convalidation and no divorce? Sticky!
2. Likewise, what if they tell family and friends (including their children), “We were doing fine, but we had concerns and the annulment tribunal told us we weren’t married, so we have to get a divorce now because the Church said so!”

Pastorally, it sounds like a nightmare.

(I do support the idea of providing tentative, hypothetical, non-binding answers, which seems to be common practice.)

 

[chevalier]

But, Diocese of Phoenix has this on their tribunal page:

Do I need to be civilly divorced before petitioning for an annulment?
Yes. Because the annulment process is purely religious, it does not involve custody of children, temporal goods, etc. which must be settled before the investigation in the Tribunal may begin. (…)
​

As reluctant as I am to contradict an official statement from a Catholic diocese, that’s not true.

There may be various reasons why American tribunals require civil divorces, including (but not limited to):

— avoidance of legal problems with the state (in other words, lawsuits, administrative investigations and penalties etc.)
— making sure that the couple cannot be reconciled

The latter relates to something which canon law really does require — it does impose the obligation to try and steer the spouses towards reconciliation.

However, the practice is not required by canon law. I believe it’s detrimental and — at the end of the day — wrong, because a Catholic should try to stay in a marriage that’s valid though unhappy. And just how reasonable or unreasonable would it be to ‘remarry’ civilly after the marriage is found valid (strictly speaking: not found null)?

I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to get a civil divorce before getting a decree of nullity. It would violate my conscience to have to do it the other way round.

1. Likewise, what if they tell family and friends (including their children), “We were doing fine, but we had concerns and the annulment tribunal told us we weren’t married, so we have to get a divorce now because the Church said so!”

Pastorally, it sounds like a nightmare.

Pastorally, truth is still more important than expediency.​

 

[Xantippe]

And just how reasonable or unreasonable would it be to ‘remarry’ civilly after the marriage is found valid (strictly speaking: not found null)?

**Reasonable or unreasonable, people do it all the time.

Elizabeth Taylor married Richard Burton twice and lots of less famous people do the same thing.

“In her study of 1,001 reunited couples from around the world, only about 6 percent said they married, divorced and remarried the same person. On a more positive note, though, 72 percent of those who reunited stayed together, particularly if their separations occurred at a young age.”

articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-23/features/sc-fam-1023-divorce-reunite-20121023_1_divorce-process-couples-relationship**

Pastorally, truth is still more important than expediency.

Annulment before divorce makes the Church a contributing factor to the divorce.

Not a good look, I think.

 

[chevalier]

Annulment before divorce makes the Church a contributing factor to the divorce.

Not a good look, I think.

That’s a look only, and avoiding it would be catering to worldly perceptions of an uneducated, unreflective kind even for worldly standards.

Look at the grounds of nullity: the impediments (e.g. previous priestly ordination or a monk’s vows, kinship in close degrees) and the defects of consent (notably fraud, simulation, error and incapacity to make the vows one is attempting to make). Which of these reasons look immoral or marriage-breaking to you?

Forcing people to continue to live in invalid marriages would be evil, it would even smack of institutional rape (if perhaps not of the worst kind within that ignoble categorym granted).

Someone who insists on upholding a marriage extracted by fraud is not a defender of marriage but a misguided airhead or superstitious person. That’s not something the Church ever should uphold.

Next, requiring that the parties first process their claims through the state’s courts has an impression of yielding to the state the position of the more important judge. That’d be unacceptable — God is above earthly rulers, including not just the kings of old but also The People in all their glory.

God’s laws are more real than man’s laws. The primary legal reality for a Catholic should be the legal status of one’s marriage in the eyes of God, not of the state.

At the risk of sounding a little off, the Church can’t ‘protect’ us from God. On the other hand, God can protect us from the state. (Or flip it around and make the state trip on its own designs and convert and come over, e.g. ancient Rome.)

 

[Xantippe]

That’s a look only, and avoiding it would be catering to worldly perceptions of an uneducated, unreflective kind even for worldly standards.

Look at the grounds of nullity: the impediments (e.g. previous priestly ordination or a monk’s vows, kinship in close degrees) and the defects of consent (notably fraud, simulation, error and incapacity to make the vows one is attempting to make). Which of these reasons look immoral or marriage-breaking to you?

Forcing people to continue to live in invalid marriages would be evil, it would even smack of institutional rape (if perhaps not of the worst kind within that ignoble categorym granted).

Someone who insists on upholding a marriage extracted by fraud is not a defender of marriage but a misguided airhead or superstitious person. That’s not something the Church ever should uphold.

Next, requiring that the parties first process their claims through the state’s courts has an impression of yielding to the state the position of the more important judge. That’d be unacceptable — God is above earthly rulers, including not just the kings of old but also The People in all their glory.

God’s laws are more real than man’s laws. The primary legal reality for a Catholic should be the legal status of one’s marriage in the eyes of God, not of the state.

At the risk of sounding a little off, the Church can’t ‘protect’ us from God. On the other hand, God can protect us from the state. (Or flip it around and make the state trip on its own designs and convert and come over, e.g. ancient Rome.)

I don’t think you’re thinking through the practicalities, especially in cases with mixed marriages or where the surrounding culture is predominantly Protestant or non-Catholic.
Aside from that, the core problem with your suggested approach is that it is virtually impossible for a married couple to at the same time A) work wholeheartedly on fixing and saving their marriage, being kind to each other, working with their priest and counselor and providing a good life for their children and B) to fill out the annulment paperwork and be waiting for an answer. It’s like hitting the gas and the brakes hard at the same time. Unfortunately, just going through the annulment process alone (the exhaustive paperwork delving into every aspect of the marriage and the need to collect witnesses to testify against the validity of the marriage) could cause a divorce just by itself. There’s also the issue that witnesses might be very conflicted about testifying truthfully in a situation where the couple is still sharing a home and raising children together and the witness (who is probably an interested party–perhaps a parent or other relative) believes that the marriage can be saved and doesn’t care at all about the issue of validity or invalidity.

The length of time required for an annulment is also a huge issue. In the US (which has a reputation for “drive thru” type service), an annulment can take 2-3 years. That’s “fast” in the Catholic context but an eternity when sharing a home with a person that might or might not be your validly married Catholic spouse. Imagine what life will be like in the home of a family where mom and dad are racing each other to the mailbox to see what came from the tribunal and spending years filling out paperwork to prove that they couldn’t possibly be married to each other…Imagine being a child in that environment…And that’s the fast version–we’ve often heard on CAF that elsewhere in the world (for instance, Latin America), people often wait 10+ years for their cases to be processed.

 

[roseofshannon]

Legally separated usually implies that y’all aren’t living together. If y’all have been doing that for three years, how exactly are you living out your vocation?
Do y’all still do things with one another? Have family dinners? Do y’all communicate when it comes to finances? How are you raising a family together if y’all aren’t…together?
Not wanting a divorce doesn’t mean that you aren’t getting one. I didn’t want a divorce and I was blindsided by mine, not legally separated for years. If papers were served, you will divorce unless he changes his mind, since he filed.
I’m really sorry you are going through this, I received my final decree of divorce recently.
If you don’t want to participate in the annulment process you don’t have to. He can do it without you.

I understand where you are coming from, but we are talking about declaring a sacrament null, as if it never happened.

So from that standpoint, can we declare our baptism or confirmation null just because we are no longer a practicing Catholic?

Having dinner together etc. are a lovely part of marriage. Yet, living apart can sometimes become necessary, and as the Catechism indicates is fine for just reasons. However the sacrament remains until death.

If it weren’t for no-fault divorce, I would fight the divorce.

What I mean by living out our vocation is that we are an example to our kids and grandkids that you get one chance at marriage. Chose wisely (we did), prepare well (we did) and if there are problems, then cooperate with the counselors and work it out (he didn’t), because if you don’t, you will live alone for the rest of your life.

The thought that “I can always get a divorce and find some reason to get an annulment” lessens one’s resolve to work things out.

Plus, I can’t tell you how enlightening the response from people has been when I tell them that I am separated and not divorced because I am Catholic and we believe that it’s until death do us part. It is a witness to the true meaning of the sacrament.

 

[Vico]

As reluctant as I am to contradict an official statement from a Catholic diocese, that’s not true.

There may be various reasons why American tribunals require civil divorces, including (but not limited to):

— avoidance of legal problems with the state (in other words, lawsuits, administrative investigations and penalties etc.)
— making sure that the couple cannot be reconciled

The latter relates to something which canon law really does require — it does impose the obligation to try and steer the spouses towards reconciliation.

However, the practice is not required by canon law. I believe it’s detrimental and — at the end of the day — wrong, because a Catholic should try to stay in a marriage that’s valid though unhappy. And just how reasonable or unreasonable would it be to ‘remarry’ civilly after the marriage is found valid (strictly speaking: not found null)?

I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to get a civil divorce before getting a decree of nullity. It would violate my conscience to have to do it the other way round.

Pastorally, truth is still more important than expediency.

If it not required in canon law, but the bishop adds it. So, the bishop would need to be contacted to avoid it where the rule has been adopted, I believe.

Another example is the Archdiocese of Atlanta, tribunal which states: “Once a person has been divorced, a person can approach the local parish to initiate the process.”
Another is the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire:“In the Manchester Diocese, the process is begun by contacting a priest, deacon, or pastoral associate, preferably one in your own parish, who will make an appointment to meet with you to complete a Petition for the Declaration of an Invalid Marriage. This is done only following the completion of one’s civil divorce. All parishes in the Diocese are supplied with petitions.”

 

[Corki]

Annulment before divorce makes the Church a contributing factor to the divorce.

Not a good look, I think.

And anything that was brought up in the annulment process (even if the marriage was found to be valid) could be used against one party or the other during divorce proceedings. The Church certainly doesn’t want to be used as a weapon between splitting spouses.

 

[Xantippe]

And anything that was brought up in the annulment process (even if the marriage was found to be valid) could be used against one party or the other during divorce proceedings. The Church certainly doesn’t want to be used as a weapon between splitting spouses.

That is also a very good point.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I understand where you are coming from, but we are talking about declaring a sacrament null, as if it never happened.

So from that standpoint, can we declare our baptism or confirmation null just because we are no longer a practicing Catholic?

Having dinner together etc. are a lovely part of marriage. Yet, living apart can sometimes become necessary, and as the Catechism indicates is fine for just reasons. However the sacrament remains until death.

If it weren’t for no-fault divorce, I would fight the divorce.

What I mean by living out our vocation is that we are an example to our kids and grandkids that you get one chance at marriage. Chose wisely (we did), prepare well (we did) and if there are problems, then cooperate with the counselors and work it out (he didn’t), because if you don’t, you will live alone for the rest of your life.

The thought that “I can always get a divorce and find some reason to get an annulment” lessens one’s resolve to work things out.

Plus, I can’t tell you how enlightening the response from people has been when I tell them that I am separated and not divorced because I am Catholic and we believe that it’s until death do us part. It is a witness to the true meaning of the sacrament.

If the marriage is deemed vaild, it is still until death. I don’t think I said anything about “finding some reason to get an annulment”
However, since I have been through the awful heartbreaking failure of divorce, I’m going to try to get it annulled…he wants no part in the annulment, yet he’s the one who filed. If it wasn’t sacramental, then it wasn’t sacramental. If it is, you will still be in the marriage.

 

[roseofshannon]

If the marriage is deemed vaild, it is still until death. I don’t think I said anything about “finding some reason to get an annulment”
However, since I have been through the awful heartbreaking failure of divorce, I’m going to try to get it annulled…he wants no part in the annulment, yet he’s the one who filed. If it wasn’t sacramental, then it wasn’t sacramental. If it is, you will still be in the marriage.

Oh, I wasn’t referring to you saying anything about finding some reason to get an annulment, I was referring to what my husband is doing.

This article brought up some interesting points:
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1236

For one, it says that tribunals are not infallible.

Also, it’s discusses what a person’s motivation to getting an annulment is.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh, I wasn’t referring to you saying anything about finding some reason to get an annulment, I was referring to what my husband is doing.

This article brought up some interesting points:
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1236

For one, it says that tribunals are not infallible.

Also, it’s discusses what a person’s motivation to getting an annulment is.

People can’t put one over God, so what’s the point of seeking an annulment dishonestly? Divorced and remarried people are not social pariahs in the developed world. Unless there’s some sort of particular family issue (grandma will disinherit you if you marry outside the Church!) there’s no advantage to be gained by seeking an annulment unless one’s motivation is simply to discover whether or not one is free to marry again. There’s no worldly advantage to be gained.

As an old Russian friend once said, “Bog ne fraier” (God is not a sucker).

 

[roseofshannon]

Actually, if you are publicly known as a good Catholic guy (who privately abuses his wife) and do business within those circles, there is a great worldly advantage to finding some way to get an annulment: ie keeping up appearances.

So a guy destroys his first marriage, and seeks an annulment so he can start over with someone else?

The part I fear is the “he said”, “she said”. How will they know who is telling the truth?

 

[Xantippe]

Actually, if you are publicly known as a good Catholic guy (who privately abuses his wife) and do business within those circles, there is a great worldly advantage to finding some way to get an annulment: ie keeping up appearances.

So a guy destroys his first marriage, and seeks an annulment so he can start over with someone else?

The part I fear is the “he said”, “she said”. How will they know who is telling the truth?

You’re describing a situation where there genuinely was abuse in the first marriage. If that abuse extended through the entire marriage, or if that abuse were caused by either mental problems or addiction that extended through the entire marriage, would an annulment really be that improper? Bear in mind, his first wife is free to explain to the annulment tribunal that he was abusive.

It’s a bad situation for his prospective second wife, but I don’t see the injustice to the first wife.

 

[roseofshannon]

Well, I am the first wife and I don’t want an annulment. I don’t want a divorce.

And no the abuse did not start until after the marriage.

What I would like is for him to cooperate with the counsel we have received or face the consequences.

If the consequences be that we live separately for the rest of our lives, we are a witness to our children/grandchildren and others of the true meaning of the sacrament. We can also offer up our sufferings for our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages.

Also, I wouldn’t want his second marriage to be “valid” and a sacrament, while ours wasn’t??

 

[JimG]

I’m guessing that you have a better chance of success in opposing the annulment than in opposing the divorce. Divorce doesn’t even need a reason. A decree of nullity does.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, I am the first wife and I don’t want an annulment. I don’t want a divorce.

And no the abuse did not start until after the marriage.

What I would like is for him to cooperate with the counsel we have received or face the consequences.

If the consequences be that we live separately for the rest of our lives, we are a witness to our children/grandchildren and others of the true meaning of the sacrament. We can also offer up our sufferings for our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages.

Nothing is stopping you from doing that all by yourself.

Also, I wouldn’t want his second marriage to be “valid” and a sacrament, while ours wasn’t??

Why?

If he divorces and remarries, the choices are:

A. He does so with an annulment and probably has a valid second marriage.

B. He does so without an annulment and is probably in a state of mortal sin.

Is B really preferable to you?

Don’t let this situation take over your life and poison your children’s young adult years. I’ve seen this movie before in a relative’s life–it is not a good Christian witness to your children or your grandchildren if you choose to make everything about your failed marriage and create a huge emotional black hole at the center of your extended family. For your children and your grandchildren’s sake, try to make the best of your situation and live as happy and productive a life as you can manage.